Commons talk:Administrators/Requests/Jcb (de-adminship)
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Amazement
[edit]I am quite amazed by the pettiness of the accusations here. There is abuse by admins that is much worse, but few people react. The main problem with admin behaviour on Commons is with the arbitrary blocks. I was blocked a few days ago for no good reason, by Masur (talk · contribs) who by default also blocks talk page access! Worse are the permanent blocks, like Sandstein blocking Elkawe or Rama's block log (Hcrepin was one of the victims). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:54, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- This case is not about them, and you are hardly one to be casting stones yourself. If you have an issue, bring it up on Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems. Powers (talk) 18:19, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- And Abigor (talk · contribs) was in a position to cast stones, you mean? I have never abused any admin buttons. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- Arbitrary blocks are among the most serious issues raised in this desysop request. Trycatch (talk) 18:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- And Abigor (talk · contribs) was in a position to cast stones, you mean? I have never abused any admin buttons. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Closure
[edit]Really strange. It was closed by a non bureaucrat who participated in the debate. -- Docu at 19:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
- Time was up, the result was clear, bereaucrat tools were not required to implement consensus. I don't see any reason not to help unless my participation makes you think my evaluation of consensus was biased? Having said that, if any bereaucrat wants to overturn my call of the outcome, they are welcome to. --99of9 (talk) 04:21, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- I doubt consensus was clear (there were some votes with debatable validity) and it's not logical to close this out of sequence. -- Docu at 04:37, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- A 2:1 majority would require 26 of the 30 keep votes to be invalid! But, like I said, if a bereaucrat wants to overturn, I won't object. --99of9 (talk) 04:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- I had thought at least 7x% support was needed by to retain adminship, but apparently it's 50% remove votes that are needed (Commons:Administrators/De-adminship). -- Docu at 04:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- Per Docu - as far as I know for rights to be retained with certainty an 80% support level would be required - beyond that is open to 'crat discretion. --Herby talk thyme 07:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Herby, I think you misread Docu's link. It says about 50% is sufficient to remove. --99of9 (talk) 07:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- My bad - apologies. --Herby talk thyme 07:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- Not involved in voting I reviewed this case and striked out two votes of users with too few edits. But still there's no "majority consensus" to de-admin ... a×pdeHello! 09:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- My bad - apologies. --Herby talk thyme 07:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Herby, I think you misread Docu's link. It says about 50% is sufficient to remove. --99of9 (talk) 07:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- Per Docu - as far as I know for rights to be retained with certainty an 80% support level would be required - beyond that is open to 'crat discretion. --Herby talk thyme 07:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- I had thought at least 7x% support was needed by to retain adminship, but apparently it's 50% remove votes that are needed (Commons:Administrators/De-adminship). -- Docu at 04:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- A 2:1 majority would require 26 of the 30 keep votes to be invalid! But, like I said, if a bereaucrat wants to overturn, I won't object. --99of9 (talk) 04:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- I doubt consensus was clear (there were some votes with debatable validity) and it's not logical to close this out of sequence. -- Docu at 04:37, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- Just dropping in to say I see no real problem with the way it was closed, although I do think it might have been a good idea to let an uninvolved user codify the result. I'm not one to blindly require a bureaucrat to close these things, but I don't think it would have hurt. Again, I would have closed it the same way, as would I'm sure all of my fellow bureaucrats, but in most cases the perception of fairness is just as important as practical impartiality. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- Nothing there to be amazed, This is a protective voting by many admins to protect one among them (Considering single issue) not judging the answer by the community, as all the user's dont have this page on there watch list. I have requested a mediawiki watchlist notice...clever admins just ignore it or its not a practice..--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 12:27, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- For what it is worth I have no issues with a non crat closure - I have done similar in the past. Indeed I have no issues with the outcome - time alone will tell on behaviour in the future but Jcb does an awful lot of work here. --Herby talk thyme 15:21, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- I for one have no idea who Jcb is in real life, and I don't think I've ever even spoken with him on-wiki. It would be a bit nonsensical for me to try to "protect" his admin status. Obviously I can't speak for others but if there is a conspiracy, I wasn't invited to take part in it. :( –Juliancolton | Talk 17:15, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- Agreed with Herby, That time brings all the issues here..all the previous issues were highlighted in this..Again a similar de-admin req will strongly opposed by the same group, As this voting will be limited to the peoples watching this topic..--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 17:32, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- Nothing there to be amazed, This is a protective voting by many admins to protect one among them (Considering single issue) not judging the answer by the community, as all the user's dont have this page on there watch list. I have requested a mediawiki watchlist notice...clever admins just ignore it or its not a practice..--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 12:27, 16 July 2011 (UTC)